Tag Archives: John Paul Stevens

An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group’s “discriminatory practices.”

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith.

But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group’s First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college’s nondiscrimination policy.

[…]Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court’s conservatives, saying the opinion was “a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”

“Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate,'” Alito said, quoting a previous court decision. “Today’s decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

[…]Justice John Paul Stevens was even harsher, saying while the Constitution “may protect CLS’s discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them.”

Stevens, who plans to retire this summer, added that “other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women — or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”

It should be noted that Sam Alito is a George W. Bush appointee, as was John Roberts. Stevens is widely regarded as the second most liberal Justice on the SCOTUS, with Ruth Bader-Ginsburg who wrote for the majority being the most liberal.

How did the Supreme Court become so liberal? Well, because a majority Christian country voted in Presidents who appointed liberal judges. I have had Christians whom I respect and admire, who love free speech, tell me that they valued things like universal health care, social welfare programs for single mothers and public education. If you want a secular government to take over things in private industry, so that the government has a monopoly funded by mandatory tax collection from Christians, then you get a secular Supreme Court. A secular Supreme Court has no respect for your religious liberty. And the Democrats are the party of secularism. A vote for Democrats is a vote against religious liberty. A vote against the public practice of Christianity.

If you young Christians are looking for something to do, why not get your law degrees and join the ADF or the HSLDA? And I am especially talking about you homeschoolers. Don’t homeschool yourselves out of a position of influence. If you want to keep your right to be a Christian in public, you’re going to have to fight for those rights. Because standing apart from the academy is equivalent to giving up your rights. You better have a plan to go to college, and I do mean a good college, and grad school after that. No exceptions.

By the way, you can learn more about Barack Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court. She is going to be FAR WORSE than John Paul Stevens. And again, lots of Christians voted for Obama and thus will cause a loss of religious liberty. Obama has already passed laws that restricted Christians from being as free as they were under Bush, not the least of which is the ability not to be complicit in funding the Big Abortion industry.

…Kagan has revealed her pro-abortion loyalties by contributing financially to the pro-abortion National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF), reported Americans United for Life Wednesday.

NPWF, according to its own website, works “to increase women’s access to quality, confidential reproductive health services and block attempts to limit reproductive rights and reverse hard-won gains.” The organization goes on to specify “contraceptive services and supplies, sexuality education, [and] abortion services” as among its top concerns.

In addition, wrote AUL, NPWF senior advisor Judith Lichtman “wholeheartedly” supported Kagan’s nomination in a letter, saying the Solicitor General was a “friend and colleague.” Lichtman, a radical supporter of abortion, has said that “efforts to limit coverage of abortion services are really attempts to deny women access to health care services,” according to AUL.

NPWF has deep connections among the most powerful pro-abortion lobby groups in the country: NPWF President Debra L. Ness serves on the Board of Directors at Emily’s List, a group dedicated to helping pro-abortion female politicians win elections, and once worked as deputy director of NARAL. NPWF Board Chairwoman Ellen Malcolm was the founder of Emily’s List.

Top White House aides expect President Obama to select Solicitor General Elena Kagan on Monday as the Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, reports Mike Allen of Politico Friday.

[…]Kagan is known for strongly favoring taxpayer funded abortion, and is a critic of the 1991 Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations prohibiting Title X family planning fund recipients from counseling on or referring for abortion.

Americans United for Life also reports that Kagan once suggested that faith-based groups operating pregnancy care centers should not counsel pregnant youths, for fear that they would include their religious beliefs in the counseling process.

In April, the White House reacted with fury when Ben Domenech, writing in a blog post for CBS News, declared that Kagan would be the “first openly gay justice” on the U.S. Supreme Court. Under increasing pressure from the Obama administration, CBS eventually pulled the post and Domenech apologized for “a Harvard rumor” – but not before posting an addendum stating: “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted – odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan will face two major stumbling blocks as a Supreme Court nominee – her anti-military views and her ties to Goldman Sachs, a conservative group says.

“Conservatives know Kagan as the Harvard Law School Dean who tried to bar the military from college campuses, an issue she fought all the way to the Supreme Court,” the Family Research Council said on Friday in an email to supporters.

“At the time, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the court’s most liberal justices, couldn’t find a way to justify Kagan’s position.” The FRC described Kagan’s “incredibly hostile view of the military” as “well outside the American mainstream.”

The group also criticized Kagan’s strong support for “hate crimes” laws. And it notes that she has no judicial experience, never having litigated a case to verdict or trial.

Kagan served on a Goldman Sachs advisory council several years ago, receiving a $10,000 stipend for her work.

[…]Americans United for Life describes Kagan as an “ardent abortion supporter.”

“Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law,” said AUL CEO and President Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

[…]The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, said it is confident that Kagan has “a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.”

She is a radical, radical leftist.

Who would the Wintery Knight nominate to the Supreme Court?

If we had elected McCain instead, then he might have appointed my favorite judge, Edith H. Jones or my other favorite judge, Janice Rogers Brown.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown is the first black woman to serve on California’s Supreme Court. Her nomination to a federal appeals court has been blocked by Senate Democrats.

In 1997, she issued a well-researched dissent in a case where the California Supreme Court overturned a pro-life law requiring abortion facilities to obtain parental consent before performing an abortion on a teenage girl.

Brown accused the court’s plurality of abrogating the constitutional rights of parents, described the court’s thinking as circular, and called the case “an excellent example of the folly of courts in the role of philosopher kings.”

“When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable,” Brown wrote, “the judgment call belongs to the Legislature. They represent the will of the people.”

She also dissented in a decision requiring Catholic Charities to pay for contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans. The decision concerns pro-life groups because it could lead to a requirement that abortion be covered as well.

Brown has also garnered the support of the California voters. In 1998, 76% of voters decided to keep Brown on the bench in their state, the highest percentage of supporting votes in that election.

Edith Jones

Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is frequently mentioned as a contender for the high court. She was considered for the Supreme Court seat that eventually went to Clarence Thomas.

If pro-life advocates are looking for a justice who strongly opposes Roe v. Wade, Jones should be a favorite.

When the 5th Circuit denied a request in October by Norma McCorvey to approve her motion to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, Judge Jones issued an opinion blasting the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe and saying it needs to be re-examined.

Jones, a Reagan nominee, wrote that the “[Supreme] Court’s rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our legislative bodies.”

“The perverse result of the Court’s having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter,” Jones added.

Jones chided the nation’s high court for being “so committed to ‘life’ that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year,” but failing to grasp the fact that abortions destroys the lives of unborn children.

“One may fervently hope that the court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly,” Jones said of the 5000 pages of evidence with affidavits from over 1000 woman who have been harmed by abortion.

These are the two best picks for supreme court, if we are going for raw talent. And it’s a tragedy that they are both not on the Supreme Court right now. A tragedy!